Jim Nielsen argues against giving every menu item an icon by default. In his new post, he describes Apple reversing the approach introduced in macOS Tahoe and changing its interface guidance. His persuasive argument has changed too: Apple tried it, shipped it, and then went back.
A symbol should explain something
His original critique is more specific than a dislike of decoration. An obligatory icon slot asks a designer to find something to fill it. A better question is whether that symbol helps someone recognize a command or understand its result.
Nielsen points to menus mixing text, icons, checkmarks, and different indents. Each extra visual convention gives the reader another thing to interpret. But he also praises Finder’s window-layout icons: a picture of a window arrangement can explain the outcome faster than labels such as “Bottom & Top.”
The distinction is between a symbol that conveys the action and one that merely accompanies the words.
Keep the lesson narrower than the platform story
A reversal after shipping is a reason to reconsider a design default. It also makes a better case than treating Apple’s current behavior as permanent authority.
Nielsen’s post is a practitioner critique, not a controlled usability study. It does not establish that every menu icon slows people down, or explain Apple’s internal research. The reported platform changes are his account, not independently tested here.
For a menu review, ask what each icon adds beyond its label, whether toggles and alignment remain easy to read, and whether the choice fits the task. Keep icons that clarify outcomes. Let the rest justify their space.